Skip to main content

Summary of Rothschild Power

Movies Preview

Summary of Rothschild Power


I repudiate an objection to Jews based on birth rather than pathological manifestations of their culture. However, in spite of my objection to race hatred, and my desire that solutions not invoking this be worked out, I am obligated to not engage in obfuscation, and so I present the uncensored facts as I have come to understand them, so as to work towards nullifying the harsh political realities that most prefer to ignore:
The book highlighted is by a deeply problematic author and bigoted disciple of Ezra Pound - the depth of his problems is revealed in his FBI file:[]=FOIA:%20Mullins
Nevertheless he did some very good work and he can be independently corroborated - and in the text highlighted he provides a very important gestalt perspective, for which reason I have highlighted it. Also, many like to pretend that arguments like his were merely the invention of himself and others in the fringe populist anti-Semitic milieu, when much of the information he provides can be independently verified - the political scientist Peter Dale Scott, while acknowledging his problematic nature, nevertheless noted the value of Mullins, stating, "I know from my own experience that there are relevant facts in ... Mullins which it is impossible to find elsewhere.": - and also, eminent experts have corroborated these arguments:
I will eventually relegate mention of Mullins to a footnote, though I provide his text in lieu of an intended long essay.
The following, which corroborates these arguments and shows how they are a natural extension of what can be established with primary and authoritative sources, is a placeholder for that intended long essay, abridged from a previous version:

The Rothschild family has ruled the world for a very long time. Of course, the Rothschilds didn’t just come out of nowhere. Their activities would have not been possible in a World in which there was not a long history of financial domination. Some have traced this history of what I’ll call mercantile parasitism to old Venetian financial networks (incidentally, the Warburg banking family, influential in our time, descended from the Venetian del Banco family). Some, like R. Buckminister Fuller (in "Critical Path"), have traced this system back to ancient Phoenecian predecessors to these merchant bankers. It has probably been around for as long as “civilization”, as we presently call it, has existed. This empire of mercantile parasitism spread from Venice and elsewhere outward through Europe, and further refined banking practices in Amsterdam. Things really took off with the “Glorious” revolution, financed by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam like Manasseh ben Israel (Cecil Roth. "A History Of The Jews In England". Chapter VII. "Readmission, 1609-64":,1609-64.htm), and the establishment of the bank of England, also put forth by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam (Werner Sombart. "The Jews and Modern Capitalism". T.F.Unwin, 1913. p. 70: - Sombart dispels the idea that Jews were "forced" into usurious trades by European monarchs on p. 309 of his text). Years later, in the 1700s, as noted by the Jewish scholar Josef Kastein, "The stock exchanges of both Amsterdam and London were controlled by Jews." (Josef Kastein. "History and Destiny of the Jews". Garden City publishig Company, Incorporated, 1936. p. 377:
Further insight can be garnered by consultation of the text "How Jewry Turned England Into a Plutocratic State" (by the Hitlerite German National Socialists, a historically problematic group, but an erudite expose, corroborated by primary sources given here - featuring this should not be misconstrued as a blanket endorsement of the National Socialists):

The activist of the early 1800s, William Cobbett (, noted, as printed in "A history of the Protestant reformation in England and Ireland" (1829), of the Bank of England (p. 428): "The inventors knew well what they were about. Their design was to mortgage, by degrees, the whole of the country, all of the lands, all of the houses, and all other property, and even all labour, to those who would lend their money to the State.":
Stephen Zarlenga noted that "Substantial opposition to the Bank arose immediately. Some came from coin clippers such as the goldsmiths, who wanted no competition from the Bank. The Tories, England's landowners, opposed it as they saw the power it would give to their commercial political opponents - the Whigs. Others opposed it for sound economic, or moral reasons.
The Lower House of Parliament objected that this would be a bank in the State without being under the control of the Government.
One of the monetary thinkers of the time, William Lowndes, arguing against the Bank, said:
"...who can think that posterity will be willing to pay a tax of £110,000 per annum (on the original loan) not for the support of their own government, for the time being, but to go into the pockets of private men, strangers as well as natives for money advanced to their ancestors, when it will be in their power to acquit the public of such a burden?,.. "Future Parliaments will always have power, and may be told it is in their interest to exonerate the Nation of such endless burden as this will otherwise be." [cf. Bannister, Saxe. "William Paterson, the Merchant Statesman, and Founder of the Bank of England: His Life and Trials". W. P. Nimmo, 1858. p. 73:]
Lowndes didn't realize that through constant warfare vast amounts of new debt would be piled onto the original, making it impossible to pay in gold and silver." (Zarlenga, Stephen. "The Lost Science of Money". American Monetary Institute. Valatie, NY, 2002. p. 283)
The 1908 Encyclopedia Americana stated the following about the Bank of England:
“Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control … its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state … The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors …” (
The economist David Ricardo attacked the Bank of England as follows,"They have the power, without any control whatever of increasing or reducing the circulation in any degree they may think proper: a power which should neither be entrusted to the State itself, nor to any body in it... When I contemplate the evil consequences which might ensue from a sudden and great contraction of the circulation as well as from a great addition to it, I cannot but deprecate the facility with which the state has armed the Banks with so formidable a prerogative.":
In 1960 the Radcliffe Committee examined the functions of the Bank of England. Vol. 1, Memoranda of Evidence (from the committee investigation), stated (p. 9. 4.: – “Because an entry in the books of a bank has come to be generally acceptable in place of cash it is possible for banks to create the equivalent of cash [i.e. - credit]. Thus a bank may pay for a security purchased from a customer merely by making an entry in its books to the credit of that customers account; or it may make an advance by means of a similar entry. In either case an increase in it’s deposits will occur.”
The Report of the Royal Commission on Monetary, Banking, and Credit Systems, published in 1956, stated (
“The process called “creation of credit” or “creation of money” is no new development. Its origin in England in the seventeenth century as a development of the activities of the goldsmiths is described in the following passage from The Theory of Credit by Macleod (first published in 1891), Vol. II, Part II, at page 520.”
(That text just describes the history of fractional reserve banking, and is available here for the interested reader:
Incidentally, in "Elements of Banking" (Longmans, Green, And Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York and Bombay, 1902), Macleod noted (p. 155) "When it is said that a great London Joint Stock Bank has perhaps ₤25,000,000 of deposits, it is almost universally believed that it has 25 millions of actual money to "lend out" as it is called. ... it is a complete and entire delusion. These ... "deposits" are not deposits in cash at all: they are nothing but an enormous superstructure of credit.":
The 1931 Report of the Macmillan Committee said: "It is not unnatural to think of the deposits of a bank as being created by the public through the deposit of cash representing either savings or amounts which are not, for the time being, required to meet expenditure. But the bulk of the deposits arise out of the action of the banks themselves, for, by granting loans, allowing money to be drawn on an overdraft or purchasing securities, a bank creates a credit on its books, which is the equivalent of a deposit." (see bottom):
The New Zealand report also noted that following about this system that developed from fractional reserve banking in England:
“The fact that a large proportion of our money supply comes into existence as a result of the operations of the trading banks obviously disturbed many witnesses who appeared before us.” (
All of this created a formidable foundation for the Rothschild World system we have been dominated by for the last 200 years. (Some of the above sources were cited in "The Struggle for World Power" by George Knuppfer and verified with google books. Facsimiles will be forthcoming. I express confidence that they are cited in full context, because other corroborating sources that I have seen the full text of tell a similar story, and because the most astonishing citations in Knuppfer's text are independently verifiable:
The Rothschilds had extreme power almost as soon as they were established as a dynasty. The founder of the dynasty made his money by financing William of Hanau, the Elector of Hesse, who made much of his fortune by loaning mercenaries, most famously to Britain to put down the American Revolution, and who was described by Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton as “Europe’s most blue and cold blooded loan shark.”
The Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds tells us that with the rise of Napoleon, William of Hanau was forced to flee to Denmark, and tells us how he entrusted the Rothschilds with a great sum of money, which they subsequently embezzled. It states: “After the battle of Jena in 1806 the Land-grave of Hesse-Cassel fled to Denmark, where he had already deposited much of his wealth through the agency of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, leaving in the hands of the latter specie and works of art of the value of £600,000. According to legend, these were hidden away in wine-casks, and, escaping the search of Napoleon’s soldiers when they entered Frankfort, were restored intact in the same casks in 1814, when the elector returned to his electorate (see Marbot, “Memoirs,” 1891, i. 310-311). The facts are somewhat less romantic, and more businesslike. Roths-child, so far from being in danger, was on such good terms with Napoleon’s nominee, Prince Dalberg, that he had been made in 1810 a member of the Electoral College of Darmstadt. The elector’s money had been sent to Nathan in London, who in 1808 utilized it to purchase £800,000 worth of gold from the East India Company, knowing that it would be needed for Wellington’s Peninsular campaign. He made no less than four profits on this: (1) on the sale of Wellington’s paper, (2) on the sale of the gold to Wellington, (3) on its repurchase, and (4) on forwarding it to Portugal. This was the beginning of the great fortunes of the house, and its early transactions may be divided into three stages, in each of which Nathan was the guiding spirit: namely, (1) from 1808 to 1815, mainly the transmission of bullion from England to the Continent for the use of the British armies and for subventions to the allies; (2) from 1816 to 1818, “bearing” operations on the stock exchange on the loans needed for the reconstruction of Europe after Napoleon’s downfall; and (3) from 1818 to 1848, the undertaking of loans and of refunding operations, which were henceforth to be the chief enterprises of the house.”:
In discussing the Denmark incident, Morton noted that “someone once said the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.”
The Rothschilds had established a network all over Europe, with Nathan Rothschild financing the British and James Rothschild financing the French. (See “The Rothschilds” by Morton, p. 43.) So the same family was financing both sides of this war!
The Rothschild apologist Niall Ferguson denied that the Rothschilds scored another financial coup d’etat when, with advance intelligence, they started dumping securities as the battle of Waterloo was ending, creating the expectation that they knew Napoleon had won, when, in reality, they knew that Napoleon had lost, and they thus monopolized Britain’s market in consols, which formed the basis of British debt. When we look into the origins of Ferguson's argument, we find that it is spurious: (Ferguson also presents the Rothschilds as a force for peace, yet the following sources show them to also be a force for war - peace or war was a matter of their convenience and personal preference)
And in reality, the historian Ignatius Balla had established that this had indeed occurred in a book that was almost suppressed (, but was proven accurate in a court case ( It was also discussed by Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton on p. 49 of his biography of the family. The financier Henry Clews noted in “The Wall Street Point of View”, Vol. III, p. 253, “The Consolidated Act in 1757 … by which the debts of the nation, including annuities, were consolidated or brought together into one scheme, and average rate of interest being struck at three per cent. [T]hese “consols”, … are kept in account in the Bank of England and virtually form the great bulwark of its deposits.” (,+which+were+kept+in+an+account+at+the+Bank+of+England+and+is+the+great+bulwark+of+its+deposits.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NForT9_eDcXZiALnuoikCg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Consolidated%20Act%20of%201757%20consolidated%20the%20debts%20of%20the%20nation%20of%20England%20at%203%25%2C%20which%20were%20kept%20in%20an%20account%20at%20the%20Bank%20of%20England%20and%20is%20the%20great%20bulwark%20of%20its%20deposits.%22&f=false) As monopolizers of British Bank of England consols, the Rothschilds won control of the Bank of England, henceforth they ruled England, and collected interest on the debts they were owed, which of course exceeded the amount of money in the society in the first place, since money was/is created as a debt to the nation via book entry!
Morton noted that “We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic. We cannot estimate how many liveried servants, how many Watteaus and Rembrandts, how many thoroughbreds in his descendants’ stables, the man by the pillar won that single day.”
Now, the Rothschilds have a vast empire of unaccounted for wealth gained through exploitation. The Queen has immense power also – enough that her private wealth remains unaudited ( She is perhaps the most powerful landowner on the planet. Yet she is still subservient to City of London (Rothschild) interests. The City of London, or “Crown”, is very much like the Vatican in Rome – it has it’s own powers which extend beyond that of Britain. Insight into the power of this place, and the financial imperialism that surrounded it, is provided in E.C. Knuth’s masterwork “Empire of “The City”" ( Insight into the relationship between the Queen and the City is provided in the text “London” by Aubrey Menen. The person who manages the City on behalf of the bankers is referred to as the Lord Mayor. Menen notes that whenever the Queen wants to visit the City, she must bow and ask his permission, and that (p. 16) “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.” (,+and+his+entourage+in+medieval+costume,+outshines+the+royal+party,+which+can+dress+up+no+further+than+service+uniforms.&dq=the+Lord+Mayor+in+his+robes+and+chain,+and+his+entourage+in+medieval+costume,+outshines+the+royal+party,+which+can+dress+up+no+further+than+service+uniforms.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qiktT6viC7TZiAKcq8jGCg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA)
Andrew Carnegie, the famous industrialist who was connected to these circles, also discussed how much more powerful City of London financiers were than the monarchy in his text “Triumphant Democracy” (p. 380) – “My American readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parliament is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without consulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in ‘the king’s Name,’ who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own needs.” (,+while+in+Britain+an+act+of+Parliament+is+necessary+before+works+for+a+supply+of+water+or+a+mile+of+railway+can+be+constructed,+six+or+seven+men+can+plunge+the+nation+into+war,+or,+what+is%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VSotT-mDAbCGiQKq_omxCg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22My%20American%20readers%20may%20not%20be%20aware%20of%20the%20fact%20that%2C%20while%20in%20Britain%20an%20act%20of%20Parliament%20is%20necessary%20before%20works%20for%20a%20supply%20of%20water%20or%20a%20mile%20of%20railway%20can%20be%20constructed%2C%20six%20or%20seven%20men%20can%20plunge%20the%20nation%20into%20war%2C%20or%2C%20what%20is%22&f=false)
Vincent Cartwright Vickers, who was a Deputy Lieutenant of the City of London, director of Vickers, Ltd., and director of the London Assurance, noted the power of those he served, in his book "Economic Tribulation" – “… financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power, of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendships or mistrusts […] Loans to foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness, upon which the City thrives and grows rich … This national and mainly international dictatorship of money, which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the Press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass darkly ; for there is so much which ‘it would not be in the public interest to divulge’…” (electronic edition of book here:, cf. Knuth, “Empire of “The City”", p. 65)
From the base of the City of London, the Rothschilds wielded extreme power. To give just one example of this - they set the price of gold every day. William James, In "Twilight Over England", published on behalf of the Imperial War college of London, noted that (p. 78) "The story of the gold-fixing has often been told. How every weekday at 11 a.m. the representatives of five firms of bullion brokers and one firm of refiners meet at the office of Messrs. Rothschild (except on Saturday) and there fix the sterling price of gold. There is, however, a great deal of activity which lies behind his final act -- this centralization of the demand for, and the supply of gold in one office and the fixing of the price of gold on that basis. A price of gold is first suggested, probably by the representative of Messrs. Rothschild, who also acts for the Bank of England and the Exchange Equalization Account.":
And of relevance is the document called "Trading Emissions: Full Global Potential" (London: The Social Market Foundation, January 2008: - written by Simon Linnett, Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild, London (see "about the author" section of that document).
In the document, he defined "greenhouse emissions" as the new form of "social market" and stated:
"That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match....
That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue....
Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative."
He noted that "The political costs of such loss of sovereignty are lengthy. Loss of competitiveness (massively overstated in the activities in which energy is used - especially since trade will be more difficult, if, at the margin, transport is made more costly), loss of power and loss of direct control over economic levers are potentially the most significant and give the most cause for concern. But these actions are necessary if we are to answer the accusation that "it doesn't matter what we do when China is expanding its energy usage at its current rate" - we have to bring China and India in and they are not going to enter a scheme where they do not have a "say". When countries are already foregoing the right of direct control over monetary policy through the creation of independent central banks, this [the above] could be a relatively small price to pay for such inclusion."
He furthermore stated that "The EU member states have recognised their need to subordinate sovereignty to the EU; in time, if this is to work, the EU itself will need to yield sovereignty to a bigger world body on carbon trading."
He stated "Above all, this plan requires "sponsors" - a country prepared to host it and a senior politician prepared to lead this new initiative. If such a route map could be found, then perhaps we might be at the beginning of a new world constitution and a new world order."
He stated that regulating this should be a "World Environment Authority" operating from a "world city with world skills and world facilities." He then notes, in a section entitled "A natural role for London", "London is a world financial centre (possibly "the" world financial centre)." and that "London would make a compelling case to house the World Environmental Agency."
The Rothschilds also financially assaulted France. They were not considered by the French nobility to be worthy of the megalomaniacal pre-eminence they had established elsewhere, so to punish the French aristocracy, the Rothschilds bought French government bonds from the Ouvrard and Baring brothers bankers, and dumped them in huge quantities in the European market, creating a panic! They then achieved pre-eminence in French society that was to their liking.
Incidentally, in both England and France, a Rothschild was the only merchant banker allowed to be a director of the Central Bank:, and the Rothschilds would act as direct subsidizers in times of crisis:
The Niles’ National Register published in 1828 stated:
“… the house of Rothschild certainly stands pre-eminent at the recent death of one, who was thought the richest banker in Europe”:
The Niles’ National Register published on Sept 19, 1835, stated:
“The ROTHSCHILDS are the wonders of modern banking … we see the descendants of Judah, after a persecution of two thousand years, peering above kings, rising higher than emperors, and holding a whole continent in the hollow of their hands. The Rothschild govern a Christian world. Not a cabinet moves without their advice. They stretch their hand, with equal ease, from Petersburgh to Vienna, from Vienna to Paris, from Paris to London, from London to Washington. Baron Rothschild, the head of the house, is the true king of Judah, the prince of the captivity, the Messiah so long looked for by this extraordinary people. He holds the keys of peace or war, blessing or cursing.”:
Hugh S. Legaré, a Congressman from South Carolina, stated on Friday October 13, 1837 in Congress:
“What does the house of Rothschild owe to the Governments of Europe—that house to which all the Governments on the continent are obliged to have recourse in their financial exigencies?”:
The Bankers Magazine printed in 1847 stated:
“The five brothers (Anselm, Solomon, Nathan, Charles & James) have taken part in most of the great financial affairs of Austria, of France, of England, and of almost every country. They have formed among themselves an invincible phalanx. By themselves, or by their agents, they have excercised a great control over the principal places in Europe, and, faithful to their habit, never to undertake anything separately and to concert all their operations, they have followed one unvaried and identical system. Their power was such, that at one time they were free to make either peace or war.” (
Robert Merry’s Museum, Volume 15-16, printed in 1851 stated:
“The Richest Family in the World: The following account of the Rothschild’s will be found interesting, as showing what may be done by industry and talent.” (
The Ladies’ Repository published in 1863 stated:
“Baron Lionel Rothschild, the first Jew ever admitted into the English Parliament, and the wealthiest man, it is believed, now residing on our planet.” (
The Banker's Magazine published in New York, said to bankers in 1855:
"No nation can now wage a prolonged war without the aid of the great Jewish bankers of Europe." [!!!!! - see here for a saved image of this extraordinary document:]
The Cyclopaedia of Commercial & Business Anecdotes printed in 1865 stated:
“The Rothschilds, Wealthiest Bankers in the World.
The House of Rothschild is the impersonation of that money power which governs the world.” (
Rhodes Bradford (born 1849) enlisted in the 34th Pennsylvanian Volunteers during the American Civil War, he moved to New York in 1872 and became a journalist. In 1877 he started Rhodes' Journal of Banking, later buying and incorporating older banking journals. He was elected to the New York Assembly, was Chairman of Commerce on Banks and Banking, was unanimously nominated to for Congress, but declined the honor. And was the founder and president of the 34th Street National Bank, New York between 1900 - 1910.:
In his journal, it was noted:
"It must be admitted that the Jewish people control the financial markets of Europe, possessing a much greater influence than in this country. The Emperor of Russia found that he could not place a loan in the Continental markets, because Rothschild did not view such a loan as favorable to the interests of England. A few Jewish bankers are therefore really the arbitrators of peace and war in Europe." [see saved image of document:]
Former president Franklin Delano Roosevelt said “The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson” (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373):
Printed in 1905, Jewish Literature & Other Essays stated:
“The palaces of the Rothschilds, the richest family in the world, harbor many a warm heart, whose pulsations are quickened by the thought of Israel’s history and poetic heritage. Wealth has not abated a jot of their enthusiasm and loyal love for the faith.” (
The aforementioned Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds noted (
“It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.”
The British economist J.A. Hobson’s seminal book “Imperialism” published in 1902, in a section entitled “Economic Parasites of Imperialism”, states (
“Does any one seriously suppose that a great war could be undertaken by any European State, or a great State loan subscribed, if the house of Rothschild and its connections set their face against it?”
The Missionary Review of the World printed in 1906 stated that the Rothschilds were estimated to control $30,000,000,000 by that time:
Adjusted for inflation, this number becomes $726,274,509,804 (in today's dollars:
This does not include other profits accrued since then. Or money accrued from interest bearing accounts. With compounding interest, one can only guess at how much money the have. They have never been audited. A reasonable assumption would be a lot more than a trillion dollars.
Prof. Werner Sombart noted, in "The Jews and Modern Capitalism", p. 99: "'There is only one power in Europe,' was a dictum well-known about the middle of the 19th century, 'and that is Rothschild.'":
Kent Cooper served as general manager of the Associated Press from 1925 to 1943, and then became it's executive director. In "Barriers Down", pp. 6-9, he noted that by the beginning of the 20th century, the news agencies Reuters, Wolff, and Havas were a triumvirate that together monopolized international news. On p. 21, he noted that in his circles, the account was that international bankers, led by the Rothschilds, assumed ownership of those agencies at the beginning of the 20th Century. Relevant excerpts are here:
Thus we know why they were subsequently seldom mentioned in the world's media, since they owned the media.
The 1912 Encyclopedia Americana noted that “The political events of 1813 raised the House of Rothschild to the important position it has SINCE occupied in the commercial and financial world”:
It stated further, in the 1919 edition, volume 23, that “much intermarriage among cousins indicates the family is destined long to retain control of European finance”:
Rothschild biographer Frederic Morton noted that, “[T]hough they control scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one bears the name Rothschild. Being privately held partnerships, the family houses never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet or any other report of their financial condition.”
Baron Philippe de Rothschild described his family as "the richest and most powerful family in the world."(De Rothschild, Philippe, Littlewood, Joan. The Very Candid Autobiography of Baron Phillippe De Rothschild. NY; Ballantine Books. 1984. p.283): - see also this for a partial image of that page:
Recently the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds consolidated forces (though the Rockefellers have been vassals of the Rothschild empire from their inception - see "The World Order: A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism", by Eustace Mullins, ch. 4, "The Business of America"):
And Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor in chief of the Washington times, admitted that the House of Rothschild is the subsidizer of the cultural engineer and financial terrorist George Soros, who launches "color revolutions" [see work of F. William Engdahl for information on color revolutions - for the problems ofSoros, see:, and] against countries that resist the international system [the Washington Times removed the story from their site. The story did originally state, however: "The Gnomes of Zurich were derogatory caricatures of secretive, greedy, stiff Swiss-German bankers, pince-nez aquiver, who ruled over the land of secret numbered accounts for tax dodgers the world over. With the world’s best financial intelligence service, they knew their stuff and seldom spoke, even in retirement.
Their Geneva counterparts in French-speaking Switzerland were more sophisticated, relaxed in the company of global wheeler-dealers, and weren’t afraid to speak their minds, albeit off the record. Such was George C. Karlweis, the brain behind Banque Privee, owned by the late Baron Edmond de Rothschild. His biggest claim to fame: George Soros and the launch of his Quantum Fund in 1969."]:
To illustrate the power of the Rothschilds in the current World Market, note the text of the following Financial Times article discussing the sale of Evelyn Rothschild’s stake in Rothschild Continuation Holdings:
“..[this] requires agreement on the valuation of privately held assets whose value has never been tested in a public market. Most of these assets are held in a complex network of tax-efficient structures around the world.” (“French Rothschild is set to take helm in London”, Charles Pretzlik, Banking Editor, The Financial Times, London, February 10, 2003) - cited here: - I will acquire the primary source shortly.
Quite different from the experience of most of us with our assets, isn’t it?
In May 2011, a Swiss banker, who would not be named for fear of the consequences, was interviewed by the Russian magazine NoviDen. He revealed the mentality of these people, what they like to do in their spare time:
"[T]hese people are corrupt, sick in their minds, so sick they are full of vices and those vices are kept under wraps on their orders. Some of them like Strauss-Kahn rape women, others are sado maso, or paedophile and many are into Satanism. When you go in some banks you see these satanistic symbols, like in the Rothschild Bank in Zurich. These people are controlled by black-mail because of the weaknesses they have. They have to follow orders or they will be exposed, they will be destroyed or even killed."
He also noted, regarding the powerful policy steering group known as the Bilderberg group: "You have the inner circle who are into Satanism and then there are the naive or less informed people. Some people even think they are doing something good, the outer circle."
It is interesting that you can see Satanic symbols permeating the clothing of the members of the Rothschild family (as with the necklace of Baroness Philippine Mathilde Camille de Rothschild):
A Pravda interview with Tatyana Koryagina, who worked with the Russian Ministry of Economic development, and who knew of economic disasters that were set to plague the U.S. in 2001, went as follows:, preserved here:
“Koryagina: There are international “super-state” and “super-government” groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history. One must take into account the shadow economy, shadow politics and the religious component, while predicting the development of the present financial situation.
Pravda: Still, I don’t understand what could be done to this giant country [the U.S.], whose budget is calculated in the trillions of dollars.
Koryagina: It is possible to do anything to the U.S… whose total debt has reached $26 trillion. Generally, the Western economy is at the boiling point now. Shadow financial activities of $300 trillion are hanging over the planet. At any moment, they could fall on any stock exchange and cause panic and crash. The recent crisis in Southeast Asia, which touched Russia, was a rehearsal.”
On their website, the Rothschilds note that they are de facto, an agency separate from governments, that acts in an "advisory" capacity, writing, "We are widely regarded as the adviser who best understands the needs of governments and the benefits of a discreet, long-term relationship.":
But as we can see from the above citations, their influence is much deeper and more pernicious than those seemingly innocuous words imply.
(Special credit is due to an internet correspondent who goes by the pseudonym "The Black Rabbit of Inle", who is a brilliant researcher. Some of the above citations came from him, and I combined that with my own research. He operates the following website:

It is important to note that leading Zionists had no qualms about noting the dominance of the Rothschilds in their project. Theodore Herzl, credited by many as being the founder of the Zionist movement (though he was not), originally entitled his book “The Jewish State”, “An Address to the Rothschilds”(A Man Alone by André Chouraqui, Keter Books, 1970, p. 97). In fact, the Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the state of Israel, was addressed to Lionel Walter Rothschild:

Baron Edmond Rothschild of Paris was the main support of the Zionist political movement in the beginning. Theodore Herzl stated:
"For three extraordinarily difficult years they struggled against overwhelming odds, and would surely have been defeated had not a miracle saved them. ...
"The miracle was this: When one of the colonists of Rishon le Zion went to Paris and there saw Baron Edmond Rothschild and told him of the work of the Jewish settlements, the Baron grew so enthusiastic about the colonists that he immediately sent his representative to Palestine to study conditions and to help the settlers with money and advice. From that day on Baron Rothschild's interest in Jewish colonization has never waned; indeed, this work came to fill his entire life. He is known, and quite properly, as the father of Jewish colonization in Palestine. There is no doubt that it would have been impossible to preserve the early Jewish settlements and to establish new ones had not the Baron generously assisted the colonists at the beginning. He it was who, when the colonists did not know what branch of agriculture to choose, directed them toward wine-growing, by sending them expert instructors and good French vines, and by building large wine-vaults for them. In the first years, moreover, the Baron bought their grapes at a fixed price, thus assuring them of a definite income." (cited in Theodor Herzl, a memorial. New Palestine, Zionist Organization of America, Zionist Organisation. New York. 1929. p. 126):

The Friend. A Religious and Literary Journal. Vol. XL. Seventh-Day, Second Month, 23, 1867. No. 26 , noted that, "The Jews govern the money market, and the money market governs the world. ... It is related of Rothschild, that being asked, 'why he did not avail himself of existing political complications to secure to his own people the Holy Land,' he unconcernedly replied: 'It is ours already.' The Holy Land is, virtually, under mortgage to Jewish bankers—a mortgage which no Gentile power, or combination of Gentile powers, dares to meddle with.":

The Columbian Star, Saturday, November 28, 1829, noted that: "It is stated that Baron Rothschild, the celebrated London Jewish Banker, is about to purchase all Palestine the Holy Land, including Jerusalem, as a Kingdom for the Jews, over whom he is to be King.":

In light of this, the following, concerning Zionism, is of relevance:

"Red Symphony", by Dr. J. Landowsky, claims to be the record of the secret interrogation of Trotsky's chief supporter in the USSR, Christian Rakovsky, prior to his being tried in the Moscow Trials. In Red Symphony, Rakovsky admits to being part of an Illuminati conspiracy whose heads are a coterie of bankers centered around the Rothschilds and Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., who are promoting the "convergence" of Communism and Capitalism, towards "One World" [on which, see:]. He said that they partly funded Hitler's rise, hoping that he would go to war with the USSR and bring Stalin down, after which they would restore their man, Trotsky, to power. If the report is genuine, Stalin would have access to it; this could be why he had Trotsky killed:
In considering this, we now get to the problems surrounding Jewish bankers financing the Bolshevik Revolution. Although Antony Sutton noted the role of Otto Kahn and although he wrote in "Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development" that "there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236.", he provided other important counter-evidence in his Appendix II to "Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution" entitled "The Jewish-Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution":, which I challenge the crux of here: - William Galey Simpson was very critical of Sutton's glib dismissals:, and Kerry Bolton provides a superior overview in his articles "Wall Street & the November 1917 Bolshevik Revolution":, and "‘In the Interests of Money’: America, Big Business & Revolution": - which incorporates Sutton's findings, but integrates them into a larger understanding emphazing data not in Sutton's texts, either emerging after or omitted.
But I will move beyond those and refute his claim against Kuhn, Loeb & Co. being a primary backer of Bolshevism while noting one interesting fact - some of the text in "Red Symphony" bears a resemblance to State Department Decimal File 861.00/5339, quoted by Sutton in that Appendix. On the other hand, the idiosyncratic use of the terms "Buonapartist" and "Spinozist" in that text, and the fact that its themes can be corroborated, is a mark of authenticity.
One text challenging Sutton's thesis and shifting the weight towards the counter-hypothesis is From the journal Revolutionary Russia, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2008, in an article entitled "HIDDEN AGENDAS: SPIES, LIES AND INTRIGUE SURROUNDING TROTSKY'S AMERICAN VISIT OF JANUARY-APRIL 1917", we discover the following:
This article shows that circles around Schiff subsidized Trotsky. The relevant excerpt is as follows:
"In Russia, Reilly was widely believed to be a German agent and he certainly associated with persons who were. Nevertheless, he had friends in high places and ran in a crowd of equally dubious wheeler‐dealers. In New York, he was a director of the Allied Machinery Company, a firm American investigators linked to secret trade with Germany via Sweden. That definitely entailed a connection to Aschberg and, maybe, Parvus. 83 It also is interesting that Allied Machinery engaged in a lively business with Spain and had an office in Barcelona. Reilly came to the USA in 1915 to acquire arms and munitions contacts for the Russian military. His nominal employer in this venture was Abram Zhivotovskii, the same fellow Trotsky would feel such an urgent need to contact when he reached Norway. In my original article, I noted stories claiming that Zhivotovskii was Trotsky's uncle, cousin or brother‐in‐law, which I dismissed as `probably untrue'. I was wrong. Zhivotovskii was Trotsky's maternal uncle. 84 Actually, he was one of at least four brothers of Trotsky's mother, each of whom was a successful businessman by the time of the First World War. 85 Abram Zhivotovskii was associated with various Russian banks and had numerous friends in financial and governmental spheres. The latter included Petr Bark. But perhaps more important are threads linking Zhivotovskii to Stockholm and Aschberg. 86
In March 1915, Zhivotovskii came under investigation in Russia on suspicion of trading with the enemy. 87 Police searched his offices in Petrograd and he spent time in custody. Thanks to his connections, however, by early 1916 Zhivotovskii was out and back in business bigger than ever. US authorities listed him as `a grafter ... of bad reputation' and a known associate of German agents. 88 Information in the hands of the US State Department later described Zhivotovskii as a man who was outwardly `very anti‐Bolshevik' but who in fact had laundered `large sums' for the benefit of the Bolsheviks and other revolutionary organizations. 89 A similar report from December 1918 listed him as a `Bolshevist' and `uncle of Leon Trotzky [who was] an important purchasing agent for the allies under the Empire [and now] on [a] Bolshevik mission in Stockholm'. 90 Another, from 1917 or early 1918, identified `Abraham Jivotovoski' as the man who had `inaugurated Bolshevist propaganda in Japan'. 91 Everything suggests that, besides blood, Trotsky and uncle Abram shared politics.
During the war, Zhivotovskii maintained an office and large bank accounts in Yokohama under the supervision of another nephew (and Trotsky's cousin) Iosif Timofeiovich Zhivotovskii. 92 The latter was at one point Reilly's secretary. It may be significant that in October 1916, more or less simultaneous with Trotsky's appearance in Spain, Reilly made a quick trip to Japan. He was back in New York just about the time or immediately after Trotsky's arrival. Reilly's jaunt would have provided a secure means to carry messages or even money from Zhivotovskii to Trotsky. It may also mean something that among Zhivotovskii's business intimates we find another Chudnovskii, M.P. Chudnovskii, a possible relation of Trotsky's loyal comrade at Novyi mir. 93
Coincidence or conspiracy, the connections just keep coming. Reilly's two most intimate cronies in New York were Alexander Weinstein (Vainshtein) and Antony Jehalski. Weinstein had been Zhivotovskii's man in London, but joined forces with Reilly in the summer of 1916. Like Zhivotovskii, he made a public show of loyalty to Nicholas II, but other sources showed that he was `clearly identified with the Bolsheviki'. 94 An American businessman reported that Weinstein `gave a dinner party soon after the Revolution in celebration of the Czar's downfall', and `a number of Russians and Socialists were guests at the dinner'. 95 Perhaps Trotsky was one of them. The odds on that are increased by the fact that Alexander Weinstein's brother was Gregory Weinstein, revolutionary and business manager of Novyi mir. American intelligence reports name Gregory Weinstein as `closely associated with Trotzky while the latter was in this country'. 96
Antony Jechalski was reputedly a `most dangerous German spy' and simultaneously a confidant of officials in the Russian Consulate and the related Supply Committee. 97 In the autumn of 1916, he was hanging around Havana on some vague business and rushed back to New York a week before Trotsky's arrival. Among other things, Jehalski acted as a middleman between pro‐German Polish groups and the American pacifist Dr Judah Magnes. 98 Magnes was a friend and collaborator of none other that Jacob Schiff and another of those whom Professor Gottheil considered `heart and soul with the German cause'. 99 Last but not least, another of Reilly and Weinstein's familiars was Benny (Veniamin) Sverdlov, a minor Russian arms broker who was a brother of Lenin's future right‐hand man, Iakov Sverdlov. 100 "
As to the role of the Rothschilds, the anarcho-syndicalist Bakunin attacked Karl Marx for creating a false liberation ideology at their behest:
Kalr Marx and the Rothschilds had blood relations:, for the association of Moses Hess with that milieu, see:
Heinrich Heine was the first to predict the ascent of Communism:, regarding the connection of Jacob Schiff with Heine, see: - on Heine, see also:
Of relevance to this is the fact that the Russian Czar stated, in reference to the following letter, "I share entirely the opinions herein expressed.":
"The events of the year 1905, which became particularly acute at the beginning of October last, and, after a number of so-called "strikes," culminated in an armed revolt at Moscow and in other cities and localities of the Empire, show quite clearly that the Russian revolutionary movement, apart from its deep social economic causes of an internal nature, has also a quite definite international character. This side of the revolutionary movement, which deserves very serious attention, manifests itself chiefly in the fact that it is supported to a large extent from abroad.
This is clearly indicated by the striking phenomenon that the Russian revolutionists dispose of an enormous quantity of arms imported from abroad, as well as of considerable pecuniary means, since there can be no doubt that the revolutionary movement hostile to the Government, including the organising of various kinds of strikes, must have cost the revolutionaries large sums of money.
Since it must be recognised that such support of the revolutionary movement with arms and money could hardly be set to the account of foreign governments (with the exception of certain isolated cases, as for instance, the support of the Finnish movement by Sweden, and perhaps the partial support of the Polish movement by Austria), one inevitably arrives at the further conclusion that the support of our revolutionary movement enters into the calculations of some foreign capitalist organisations.
This result must be coupled with the fact that the Russian revolutionary movement is altogether distinguished by an alien racial character, since it was precisely the various allogenes—the Armenians, Georgians, Letts, Esthonians, Finns, Poles, etc.—who rose one after another against the Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining, if not complete political autonomy, at least equal rights with the native population of the Empire. When one considers, moreover, that, as is established with sufficient certainty, among these allogenes a most important part is played by the Jews, who have figured and still figure as a specially active and aggressive element of the revolution, whether as individuals, or as leaders of the movement, or in the shape of entire organisations (e.g. the Jewish Bund in the Western region), one may assume with certainty that the aforesaid support of the revolutionary movement from abroad emanates precisely from Jewish capitalist circles.
In this respect one cannot ignore the coincidence of several phenomena which could hardly be accidental. This coincidence rather logically leads to the further result that our revolutionary movement is not only, as already stated, supported from abroad, but to a certain extent also directed from there. The strikes broke out with particular force precisely in October last, that is to say, at a time when our Government was making the attempt to bring about a large foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds, and just in the nick of time for the frustration of the realisation of that financial scheme. The panic provoked by it among the holders of Russian securities and the hurried sale of those securities could not but procure in the end, as was safely to be expected, new profits for the Jewish capitalists and bankers, who speculated consciously and openly, as in Paris for instance, on the fall of Russian securities.
On the other hand, the hostile movement against the Government, which flared up immediately after the promulgation of the Manifesto of October 30th, assumed for a time milder forms as soon as the bulk of the Russian people, of whom the revolutionists had taken no account at first, responded to the hostile manifestations against the Government by pogroms upon the Jews.
This connexion between the Russian revolutionary movement and the foreign Jewish organisations is, moreover, confirmed in an obvious manner by some significant facts which have even percolated through the Press. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned wholesale importation of arms into Russia, which, as it transpires from the Agency reports, is carried on very largely from the continent of Europe via England, becomes quite intelligible when one considers that already in June 1905, precisely in England, an Anglo-Jewish Committee for collecting donations for the equipment of fighting groups among Russian Jews was openly organised with the most active co-operation of the well-known Russophobe publicist Lucien Wolf. On the other hand, on account of the melancholy consequences of the revolutionary agitation, which recoiled upon the Jews themselves, in the very same England a Committee of Jewish capitalists was founded under the presidency of Lord Rothschild, which concentrated enormous sums of money, collected by way of subscriptions in France, England and Germany, for the ostensible purpose of granting relief to the Jewish subjects of Russia who had suffered by the pogroms. Lastly, the Jews in America are organising collections both for the victims and for the arming of the Jewish youths, without formally separating these two aims from one another. There is thus no room for doubt as to the close connexion of the Russian revolution with the Jewish question in general, and with the foreign Jewish organisations in particular, which connexion is already perfectly clear from the point of view of its fundamental principles, since the founders of the Socialist doctrine, Lassalle and Marx, who wield so great an influence on the present mind of the Russian University youth, were notoriously both of Jewish origin. Nor can it be in any way doubted that the practical direction of the Russian revolutionary movement is in Jewish hands. While our newspapers pass over, no doubt intentionally, the leading part played by them in almost complete silence, it is no longer deemed necessary to make a secret of it abroad, even in Socialist circles. A member of the Jewish Working-men's Union (Bund), named Hervaille, thus declared openly at a meeting of the Dutch Socialists at Amsterdam on the 22nd October (November 4th) that in spite of the persecutions to which they were subjected, it is precisely the Jews who are standing at the head of the Russian revolutionary movement. In Italy, numerous meetings of sympathy with the said movement, which in the course of last November were organised at Rome, Milan, Turin, etc. ostensibly, "Pro liberta Russa," ended in manifestations "Pro ebrei Russi."
Thus, with the evident promotion of the Russian revolution by the Jews of all countries, in one form or another, to a larger or smaller extent, providing it above all with intelligent leaders, arms and pecuniary means, the so-to-say international side of our revolutionary movement becomes perfectly clear, and at the same time reveals those forces which the Imperial Government must combat, as well as the factors of State and public life abroad, on which it must rely in this struggle.
Starting from the idea set out above, namely, that our revolutionary movement is being actively supported and partly directed by the forces of universal Jewry, we also discover with great probability the organising and intellectual centre where the main supports and feeding organs of the militant hostility to the Government in Russia are hiding themselves. That is the famous pan-Jewish universal union established in the year 1860, the "Alliance Israélite Universelle," with a Central Committee in Paris, which possesses gigantic pecuniary means, disposes of an enormous membership, and is supported by the Masonic lodges of every description (according to some reports, they have again been carried into Russia in recent years), which represent the obedient organs of that universal organisation. The principal aim of the "Alliance Israélite Universelle"—the all-round triumph of anti-Christian and anti-monarchist Jewry (which has already taken practical possession of France) by means of Socialism which is to serve as a bait for the ignorant masses—could not but find the State system of Russia—a land of peasants, Orthodoxy and monarchism—an obstacle in its path. Hence the fight against the existing Government, which was started with consummate calculation at the very moment of our greatest weakness brought about by the Japanese war. That is also why the chief watchword of this inexorable campaign at the present moment is universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage; that is to say, it fights for a principle which if recognised by the Government would bring about immediately, even before the meeting of the State Duma, the complete removal of the existing historical-legal impediments to the triumph of Jewry in Russia, though their complete abolition is not likely to be welcome to the future chosen men of the Russian land either.
The said factors, which support the fight of the revolutionary elements against the Imperial Government from abroad, also afford on the other hand the opportunity of recognising those forces by whose joint work a favourable soil for a successful struggle with international revolutionary Socialism might be created. As a matter of fact, there can be no doubt that, in accordance with the main considerations set out above, the universally organised international revolutionary Jewry must be confronted by other enemies, apart from Russia, who by that alone must become the friends and allies of the Imperial Government. Anti-monarchist Jewry, sustained by money, cannot help undermining in every way the Monarchical German Empire, sustained by its material power. On the other hand, owing to a tradition centuries old, the universally organised anti-Christian Judaism cannot help seeing an irreconcilable enemy in the only Christian community that is likewise organised on a universal and centralised basis, viz. the Roman Catholic Church.
It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently been brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the German Empire, as well as the Holy See, are destined to exercise a very beneficent influence with regard to the anti-monarchical and anti-Christian revolutionary movement in Europe.
As for the Vatican, it must be remembered first of all that the Protestant Government of Germany has recognised long ago the full importance of the Holy See for the defence of the traditional foundations of European culture. While in its internal policy, it is leaning on the Catholic Centre-party, it has necessarily arrived at a friendly accord with the Pope in its foreign policy as well. As for Russia, the friendly assistance of the Vatican might likewise prove to be of supreme importance just in the sense indicated above. Even apart from the authoritative influence of the Holy See, through the medium of the local clergy, especially in our Polish affairs—in this respect, the latest Encyclical of the Pope to the Bishops of Poland presents a significant step in meeting the wishes of the Russian Government—the Vatican could render us an invaluable service by communicating matter-of-fact data on the dissolving Jewish freemasonry organisation and its branches, whose threads converge in Paris—an organisation about which our Government is unfortunately but little informed, whereas the Vatican is sure to watch its activity in the most attentive manner.
As for Germany, on the other hand, any further approach of its Government towards Russia—and one of a still closer nature than the agreement founded on the Protocol of March 1st, 1904, on combating Anarchism—would meet with unqualified sympathy at Berlin, since it cannot be overlooked that, next to Russia, Germany is undoubtedly the first State that will have to sustain the struggle with the Social-Revolutionary party. Both the Government and Society in Germany already take note at the present moment with the greatest apprehension of the indubitable effect of the Russian events on the Social-Democratic and Labour question, not to mention the movement of specific hostility to the Government in the Provinces of Prussian Poland.
Indeed, the West-European Socialists of various nationalities do not consider it any longer necessary to make a secret of their intention to inaugurate in this very month of January 1906, a movement hostile to the Government of Germany—which is to reach its highest development on the 1st of May 1906—and has already started it in Prussia and in Saxony with the self-same watchword of "Universal Suffrage." It could hardly be doubted that behind this movement—which they intend to organise, in accordance with the resolutions passed by the Socialist Congresses held at Jena and Breslau, by the same means as in Russia—there stand in reality the above indicated international aims and considerations of principle, that is to say, the same anti-Christian and anti-monarchical factors which had likewise been and are still in operation in the Russian revolutionary movement. At any rate, according to an observation by the Deutsche Tageszeitung, which has made it its special aim to organise the fight against the impending general European revolution, the more candid publicists of Social-Revolutionary tendencies are already expressing unceremoniously their hope that the Russian movement of hostility to the Government only presents a prelude to that general European upheaval which, among other things, is to destroy utterly the monarchical order of contemporary Europe. When one places oneself on this standpoint, one cannot help perceiving in everything said above nothing else but partial manifestations of a general revolutionary scheme the menace of which is not confined to Russia, and which, according to the formula of the well-known Liebknecht, consists essentially in realising a Republic in politics, Socialism in economics, and Atheism in the domain of religion.
In view of the considerations set forth above, no doubt can remain as to the absolute necessity of a confidential and sincere exchange of views on our part, in the sense indicated above, with the leading spheres both at Berlin and Rome. It could become the foundation of a most useful joint action, first, for the purpose of organising a vigilant supervision, and then also for an active joint struggle against the common foe of the Christian and monarchical order of Europe. As a first step in the said direction, and for the purpose of elucidating the main principles for a future programme of joint action, it seems to be desirable to confine ourselves for the present to a quite confidential exchange of views with the German Government. (Signed) Count Lamsdorf.":
The Rothschild's influence the Communist project continued onto the ascendancy of the Bolsheviks. Joseph Nedava, in a biography of Trotsky published by the Jewish Publication Society, noted that "A Jewish journalist who knew Trotsky from the period of his stay in Vienna ("when he used to play chess with Baron Rothschild in Cafe Central and frequent Cafe Arkaden daily to read the press there") is even firmer on the Yiddish issue: "He [Trotsky] knew Yiddish, and if at a later date, in his autobiography, he pretends to know nothing about Jews and Judaism, then this is nothing but a plain lie. He who had visited at Cafe Arkaden for years on end must have mastered both these matters to perfection. The language in greatest use at that Cafe was - besides `Viennese-German' - Yiddish.""(Trotsky and the Jews, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 5732, 1972, p. 36) So much for Trotsky's "anti-capitalism" then. The Rothschilds also subsidized Stalin. Simon Sebag Montefiore noted in "Young Stalin" (2008), p. 186 that Stalin, prior to the revolution, was "on the Rothschild payroll", and on p. 90, that "Stalin started laughing, almost singing: "I'm working for the Rothschilds":
It is true that historian George Kennan noted that Schiff helped finance revolutionary propaganda during the Russo-Japanese war and revolution of 1905:, and from From "Germany and Revolution in Russia 1915-1918. Documents from the Archives of the German Foreign Ministry", we find some evidence that Max Warburg was also involved in such propaganda operations:
"According to German sources, Kolyshko was, for fifteen years, the private secretary of Baron Witte. In June 1915 he came to Stockholm with an American called Passwell, who introduced Kolyshko to the German Minister there. Kolyshko expressed his willingness to conduct pro-German peace propaganda in Russia in the Ruskoe Slovo. Rantzau, from Copenhagen, advocated reserve and caution in the treatment of Kolyshko and his plans. In July 1916 Kolyshko made another appearance in Stockholm, this time accom- panied by Prince Bebutov. Bockelmann, an agent of the Foreign Ministry, negotiated with them. It became clear during these negotiations that the two Russians regarded the setting up of a publishing house, which would become the centre of pro-German propaganda, as extremely desirable. Warburg, a member of the Hamburg banking family, thought the project not only plausible, but profitable. Hugo Stinnes, the industrialist, was also interested in the negotiations between the Russians and Bockelmann, but regarded the whole business, in its initial stages, with animosity. Stinnes wanted to play the leading role, but Lucius, the German Minister in Stockholm, maintained that Bockelmann, who had relations with prominent Russians, was much more suitable to conduct the negotiations than Trenck or Fehrmann, Stinnes's agents in Scandinavia. On 12 August 1 91 6 a compromise was finally reached between Stinnes and Bockelmann. Stinnes undertook to lend Bockelmann 2 million roubles for the financing of a publishing house in Russia. Two days later Jagow, the State Secre- tary in the Foreign Ministry, and Stinnes signed an agreement in Berlin, by which the Foreign Ministry reserved the right to control the undertaking as far as the relations between Germany and Russia were concerned. It is likely that some of the money intended for influencing the Russian press in favour of Germany and peace reached, via Kolyshko, Maxim Gorki's paper Novaia Fehrmann wrote in one of his reports for Stinnes (AS 1 800 in WK 2 seer, volume 36): 'It [Novaia £hizn] has started to appear only now [May 1917] and therefore the presumption remains justified that our friend is connected with it. He probably has Gorki work on purely Social Democrat lines, in order to keep the Lutch in reserve for himself.' Before Kolyshko was arrested by the Provisional government in the summer of 1917, he went over to Stockholm once more. He saw Erzberger there on that occa- sion. The documents on the separate peace negotiations in which Kolyshko, Bebutov, Protopopov, Erzberger, Bockelmann, Warburg, and others took part can be found mainly in the series WK 2 seer, and WK 2. The key documents for the negotiations for the establishment of a publishing house in Russia are in Russland Nr. 74 seer, volume 2. The Nachlass Jagow, the private papers of the one-time State Secretary, also contain some interesting material on these negotiations."
Curtis Dall, in "FDR: My Exploited Father in Law", wrote that "Freddy Warburg was often available to help me, and many were the hours that we spent together, deep down under 15 Broad Street in the vault!
The chief guard, a fine, big Irishman named Courtney, had a great sense of humor that in a way was a challenge to Freddy's. We managed to create and enjoy quite a few laughs! This helped enliven the counting procedure in the vault. We covered a lot of social items, fought the war, etc. Freddy was quite taken with the phonograph record, "The Two Black Crows", then in vogue. He was very much amused by its lines.
One interesting anecdote he described to me took place at the close of World War 1, in November 1918. It seems his uncle. Max Warburg, of Hamburg, Germany, had been one of the Kaiser's top Secret Service men.
It was he who arranged for the first sealed train after the Armistice to pass through Germany, carrying to Trotsky in Russia $500,000 in gold. This seemed to me, at the time, to be a lot of gold to send to Trotsky, or to any one man!"
The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-1918, Second Edition, Kehillah, New York, (1919), p. 1019 noted his extreme anti Russian sentiment and how he aided enemies of Tsarist Russia. Schiff's role in supporting the Kerensky regime is well known - B.C. Forbes, in Men Who Are Making America, quoted Schiff as stating, "The Russian revolution is possibly the most important event in Jewish history since the race was brought out of slavery.":
In a Report on a May 1917 celebratory dinner of the "American Jewish Friends of a Free Russia", Jacob Schiff was introduced as a "Russian Revolutionist" to an outbreak of applause:
Jacob Schiff stated that “thanks are due to the Jew” that the Kerensky revolution in Russia had succeeded:
However, as regards the financing of the Bolsheviks, things get more difficult. I cited Richard Spence's article to show that circles around Schiff assisted Trotsky, but provided no definitive evidence. For this, I would like to note the following three things:
1) Impeachment against Boris Brasol is removed in my rebuttal to Sutton. In "The World at the Crossroads", Brasol noted, "During the Summer of 1916 a secret report was received by the Russian General Head- quarters from one of its agents in New York. This report, dated February 15, 1916, reads in part as follows : "The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has evidently resumed its activities. As a con- sequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meet- ing which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty-two delegates, fifty of whom were ' veterans' of the revolution of 1905 the rest being newly admitted members. Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists. ... The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and means to start a great revolution in Russia as the 'most favorable moment for it is close at hand/ It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favorable, when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed. The only serious problem was the financial question but whenever this was raised the assembly was immediately assured by some of the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample funds, if necessary, would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.":
2) then see the following excerpts from the writing of Henry Wickham Steed ("Through Thirty Years") of the London Times on Schiff financing the Bolsheviks and, very importantly, Schiff "showing his true colors" with his [Schiff's] anxiousness to secure recognition of Bolshevik Russia at the Versailles Peace conference:
3) Also of interest is "Geneva versus Peace" (Sheed & Ward, New York, 1937), in which Comte de Saint-Aulaire, French Ambassador to Great Britain in the 1920s, discussed his meetings with Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. financiers. They had discussions regarding why they [the Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. bankers] financed the Bolshevik Revolution. One of them said (p. 80): "You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International. These opposites, which are at the antipodes to one another in society and in their doctrines meet again in the identity of their purpose and end, the remaking of the world from above by the control of riches, and from below by revolution. ... Our mission consists in promulgating the new law and in creating a God, that is to say in purifying the idea of God and realizing it, when the time shall come. We shall purify the idea by identifying it with the nation of Israel, which has become its own Messiah. The advent of it will be facilitated by the final triumph of Israel, which has become it's own Messiah." This same financier also said (pp. 83-84): "... our essential dynamism makes use of the forces of destruction and forces of creation, but uses the first to nourish the second. ... Our organization for revolution is evidenced by destructive Bolshevism and for construction by by the League of Nations which is also our work. Bolshevism is the accelerator and the League is the brake on the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding power. What is the end? It is already determined by our mission. It is formed of elements scattered throughout the whole world, but cast in the flame of our faith in ourselves. We are a League of Nations which contains the elements of all others. ...Israel is the microcosm and the germ of the City of the future.":

Language English
Collection opensource


Reviewer: blissentia - favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite - September 13, 2015
Subject: qualifiers
As regards the critic below - I noted problems with Eustace Mullins. That doesn't stop the fact that authoritative sources corroborate some of what he said - and that facts exist independently of some of the problems of the messengers. The other reviewer on "Jesuits" provides speculation, but no evidence.

Regarding Jonathan Price's statement, he needs to look at the devotion not only to positive Eugenics and National revival of Nazis (which was fine, even incentives based negative Eugenics is fine), but also the extreme devotion to FORCED negative Eugenics, of Adolf Hitler, his extreme anti-Slavic sentiment, and genuinely anti-Semitic sentiment - as regards the former, Allen Chase wrote,
"When Hitler’s Thousand-Year Reich fell in 1945, it was revealed by the German Central Association of Sterilized Persons that at least two million human beings had had been ruled in the Eugenics Courts to be eugenically unfit (dysgenic) and sterilized against their will during the twelve years of the Nazi version of [Harry H.] Laughlin’s Eugenical Sterilization Law. Under the voluntary sterilization law of the Weimar Republic overthrown by Hitler, between 1927 and 1933 a total of less than 500 Germans—about 85 people a year, most of them women whose health would have been jeopardized by pregnancy—had been voluntarily sterilized. Under the Nazis, an average of 165,000 Germans of both sexes were sterilized annually against their will—at the rate of 450 forced sterilizations per day." (The Legacy of Malthus : The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism (University of Illinois Press, 1980). p. 135):

And see excerpts from his "Table Talk" for the latter: - see also "Mein Kampf", p. 420ff: he later changed his mind and called Jews a "Race of the Mind" in The Testament of Adolf Hitler, Boring, Or.: CPA Book Publisher, 1990. pp. 28-29, bu see see p. 30 for Hitler's own admission to excessive use of force:, and there are some relevant excerpts from Yockey's Chicago FBI file here:
these two pages:
this page (on the left): -they establish his relevance as regards Nazi intelligence, and also create difficulties for those desiring to put forth a narrative of complete negationism. Moreover, even David Irving himself notes some difficulties as established by the Höfle message in the files of decoded German SS and Police messages - that this remains authentic in spite of attempts to debunk it: - in general there are problems with the standard holocaust narrative, summarized here:, yet the above establishes that definite transgressions took place.
The Nazis had a Manichean worldview where they could have had Aristotelian ethics, ironically, the following far right author was a person who made relevant distinctions between those Jews who supported German Nationalism vs. those who betrayed it, in the article "German Nationalist Jews During the Weimar and Early Third Reich Eras": - thus items like this are excessive generalizations: - a useful refutation of that generalization comes from the Nietzschian scholar Oscar Levy, on whom see this: and, in his commentary at pp. viii-xiii of George Pitt-Rivers' text, "The World Significance of the Russian Revolution":, though if only more Jews could be like Oscar Levy! And also, the Nazis anti-Slavic racism is a bitter irony in light of David W. Anthony's text "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language":, their Aristotelian "vices of excess" unfortunately gave some discredit to consideration of racial issues which are of definite importance: (on that, see also this:*/, and this:
My view is that Nazism was a perversion of the German Conservative revolutionary Movement. which had within it an understanding of culture vitalism (on that see this: - on culture vitalism see also Ludovici's review of Brooks Adams' work on "The Law of Civilization and Decay": - for those who pretend that society doesn't exist, its just atomized individuals, de Benoist's critique of Hayek helps us in deconstructing this perspective: - the following from de Benoist also provides insight - it is the best introduction to and defense of Nationalism that I have ever come across: - we can bypass modern political nonsense by going back to Aristotle, who actually provides a basis for an Organic conception of society in his "Politics":

The following is a very good deterrent to those contemplating full scale embrace of Nazism: (this in spite of pp. 170-183, 208-212, 220-231, 236-241, 246, 250-251, 259-261, 266-272, and 284-286 of Irving's rebuttal to the negative court decision against him: - and there is also the following, concerning "Stalin's War of Extermination", which provides an added dimension to our understandings:

And in general, in light of the above, the following observation from Hitler is quite cogent: "The self-sacrificing will to give one's personal labor and if necessary one's own life for others is most strongly developed in the Aryan. The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it. Not in his intellectual gifts lies the source of the Aryan's capacity for creating and building culture. If he had just this alone, he could only act destructively. The Aryan no longer works directly for himself but for the advantage of all.

From this state of mind alone, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity. It is to this inner attitude that the Aryan owes his position in the world, and to it the world owes man; for it alone created the monuments of human culture. As soon as egoism becomes the ruler of a people, the bands of order are lossened and in the chase after their own happiness men fall from heaven into a real hell.

The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is the Jew. In the Jewish people the will to self-sacrifice does not go beyond the naked instinct of self-preservation. So it is absolutely wrong to infer any ideal sense of sacrifice in the Jews from the fact that they stand together in struggle, or, better expressed, in the plundering of their fellow men. Here again the Jew is led by nothing but the naked egoism of the individual."

The problem is that people can't wrap their mind around the idea that the Nazis could have been half-right. The problem with many mainstream academics about acknowledging the "half-right" part is that if they did this, they would be biting the hand that fed them. The half-wrong part stems from their failure to understand Aristotelian ethics.

People should nevertheless realize that individuals still lauded in the Universities were far more abhorrent than Hitler ever was - e.g. - in early Bolshevik Russia, the difference of opinion among "leadership" seemed to be over whether 10 million Native Russians should be "annihilated" (Zinoviev) vs. 90 million (Lenin) - relevant citations are on the main post on my overview of Bolshevism. Also, to note just one important item that should get people thinking - on February 29, 1944, a letter from the British Ministry of Information to the BBC and British Clergy noted that the Communists had committed atrocities all over Europe, but to save face, they would fabricate atrocity propaganda to vilify the Germans ( Subsequently, they would do just that, regurgitating propaganda against Germany that had appeared in other contexts, as false accusations, for years prior to WWII. The Zionist leader Nahum Goldmann admitted what a farce the whole affair was when he said in his autobiography that the whole Nuremberg trail had been prepared YEARS in advance in order to secure Palestine for the Zionists:

The reason the negative side of Hitler is exaggerated and the others are lauded is because, as Henry Kissinger noted, "What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system.":

On the financing of Hitler and his biting the hand that fed him, the following is of relevance - though this overview should be juxtaposed with that of Kerry Bolton in "The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis", which helps us sift through some of the speculations in this area, and, when combined with the following, suggests that if Hitler was involved at some level with international finance capitalism, he was using them as a means to an end:

As regards his initial support, Louis McFadden discussed the initial financing of Hitler by banking interests:

Curtis Dall claimed, in "FDR: My Exploited Father in Law", "When the New Deal program began to bog down here, Adolph Hitler came along. World money backed his early efforts. Then it obligingly switched and backed ours, pleased by Pearl Harbor, with Churchill's famous remark, "Now we are in the same boat" indicating his complete satisfaction also as a result of that planned incident."

In his NYT "holy war" article, Samuel Untermyer stated: "Revolting as it is, it would be an interesting study in psychology to analyze the motives, other than fear and cowardice, that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend money to Germany as they are now doing. It is in part their money that is being used by the Hitler regime in its reckless, wicked campaign of propaganda to make the world anti-Semitic; with that money they have invaded Great Britain, the United States and other countries where they have established newspapers, subsidized agents and otherwise are spending untold millions in spreading their infamous creed. The suggestion that they use that money toward paying the honest debts they have repudiated is answered only by contemptuous sneers and silence. Meantime the infamous campaign goes on unabated with ever increasing intensity to the everlasting disgrace of the Jewish bankers who are helping to finance it and of the weaklings who are doing nothing effective to check it."

A 1937 letter from former German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning to Winston Churchill revealed that Zionists financed the Nazis. It said:
"I did not and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." (However, Hitler later gave support to the Madagascar plan: -

Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild addressed the Zionist Federation in October 1938, stating (The Daily Express - October 26, 1938 - p. 17): "There are today in Europe an immense number of potential Jewish refugees and, however much you may cherish the concept of Palestine as a national Jewish home, it is obviously impossible for so small a country to absorb so large a number.
...When I say that millions of innocent people must not be exterminated for fun [interesting insight into his mentality], and to obscure internal difficulties, those countries agree with me, even though it may well be they will be unable to take increased numbers of refugees themselves." (this doesn't prove the standard narrative of exterminationism, but it does corroborate the charge that pinning this on Hitler was useful Zionist propaganda)

Franz von Papen, Vice-Chancellor under Adolf Hitler from 1933-1934, noted in his Memoirs, "the most documented account of the National Socialists' sudden acquisition of funds was contained in a book published in Holland in 1933, by the old established Amsterdam publishing house of Van Holkema & Warendorf, called De Geldbronnen van Het Nationaal-Socialisme (Drie Gesprekken Met Hitler) under the name "Sidney Warburg."" (of this book, John Loftus, in "The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People" (Macmillan, Apr 15, 1997), pp. 59-60, stated "Gregor Strasser, leader of the left Nazis, launched a propaganda attack to discredit Hitler. Steasser's attack was a clever piece of forgery, a book supposedly written by Dulles' Jewish client Warburg and published in Holland in 1933, shortly after the businessman had fled Germany.
It purported to describe three conversations Warburg had with Hitler at the request of American financiers, the Bank of England, and Western Oil firms to facilitate the rise of the Nazi party. Warburg allegedly lamented being a "cowardly instrument" of his American banking colleagues and regretted financing Hitler. The Führer apparently retaliated against the forgery by arranging for the publisher and translator to be murdered. The NAzis suppressed all copies of the book, but the damage was done. Although there was hardly a word of truth in it, it came too close for comfort for the Dulles brothers.
Hitler's financial wizard, Hjalmar Schacht, was indeed getting money from his good friend Montagu Norman at the Bank of England, as well as from Dulles brothers clients Giesche and Farben. In fact, Schacht was on the verge of arranging a secret cartel arrangement among German, British, and American investors, which would make the Farben-Standard of New Jersey oil deal look like small time indeed. The last thing the investors wanted was publicity. Strasser's phony Warburg book was the last straw.
Hitler paid a high price for power. In order to obtain continued funding from the conservative bankers, he had to get rid of the leftists in his own party. One historian claims that Hitler's bloody purge of the SA in 1934 was a plot by the German army, heavy industry, and banking interests, linked with American capital against the German electrochemical industry, the Farben corporation, and the Deutsche bank.":

Nevertheless, Sutton provides corroborating evidence (including the von Papen citation) in "Wall St. and the Rise of Hitler" ch. X:, and if we accept this to be true, we accept some of Strasser's criticisms of Hitler (put forth here:, though on Rauschning, cited in that book from Strasser, see:, and contrast Strasser's statements with David Lloyd George's writing on Hitler: to be true, or we accept the view that Hitler was an opportunist who eventually for a short time overcame these interests).

John Loftus argued that Allen Dulles was the mastermind behind a network of influence that gave rise to Hitler in "The Secret War Against the Jews" and in "America's Nazi Secret" (search for "Dulles" in both those texts).

Loftus is possibly unreliable. Jim Ennes (James Marquis Ennes, Jr.), a retired career US Naval Officer, survivor of the 1967 attack by Israel on the American intelligence ship USS Liberty, and one of the creators of The USS Liberty Memorial Web Site, argued that Loftus' account f the sinking of the USS Liberty was spurious:

Loftus is challenged in the following sources:,, and the CIA review of his book "America's Nazi Secret" was negative:

Nevertheless, serious sources exist regarding Allen Dulles and international manipulation of the Hitlerist scene. s, a good way to look into this is the Allen Dulles papers - particularly the Princeton University Library Mudd Library's Allen W. Dulles Papers: Digital Files Series:
There are some interesting documents here, though I do not know their progeny, so that might have to be looked into.
e.g. - this source in the files notes that he was behind the financing of Hitler, though I don't know the full details of this source:
Here's more, though the source is not in English, and I can't read this:
more on Dulles and the Nazis here, focusing on his relations w/ the Schroeder bank:
This may be from the CIA file on Dulles and it notes his relations with the Nazis:
Mullins is as noted problematic, but he is often independently verifiable - he provides several sources on Schroeder that are independently verifiable:
Mullins also noted:
"The New York Times noted on October 11, 1944: "Senator Claude Pepper criticized John Foster Dulles, Gov. Dewey’s foreign relations advisor for his connection with the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell and having aided Hitler financially in 1933. Pepper described the January 4, 1933 meeting of Franz von Papen and Hitler in Baron Schroder’s home in Cologne, and from that time on the Nazis were able to continue their march to power.""
The NYT article on Dulles and Pepper is here:

Other reliable sources seem to deal with this - from a NYT Book review of "The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer:
"Kinzer highlights John Foster Dulles’s central role in channeling funds from the United States to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Indeed, his friendship with Hjalmar Schacht, the Reichsbank president and Hitler’s minister of economics, was crucial to the rebuilding of the German economy. Sullivan & Cromwell floated bonds for Krupp A. G., the arms manufacturer, and also worked for I. G. Farben, the chemicals conglomerate that later manufactured Zyklon B, the gas used to murder millions of Jews. Of course, the Dulles brothers’ law firm was hardly alone in its eagerness to do business with the Nazis — many on Wall Street and numerous American corporations, including Standard Oil and General Electric, had “interests” in Berlin. And Allen Dulles at least had qualms about operating in Nazi Germany, pushing through the closure of the Sullivan & Cromwell office there in 1935, a move his brother opposed.
Allen Dulles spent much of World War II working for the Office of Strategic Services, running the American intelligence operation out of the United States Embassy in Bern, Switzerland. His shadowy networks extended across Europe, and his assets included his old friend Thomas McKittrick, the American president of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, a key point in the transnational money network that helped keep Germany in business during the war."

A review of the book "Allen Dulles, the OSS, and Nazi War Criminals: The Dynamics of Selective Prosecution" by Kerstin von Lingen says:
"This book examines the circumstances surrounding SS-Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff's escape from prosecution for war crimes in 1945. Wolff avoided prosecution because of his role in “Operation Sunrise,” negotiations conducted by high-ranking American, Swiss, and British officials – in violation of the Casablanca agreements with the Soviet Union – for the surrender of German forces in Italy that enabled the Anglo-American forces to take Trieste. After 1945, Allied officials, amongst them Allen Dulles, in a move that later helped him ascend to the head of the CIA, shielded Wolff from prosecution to maintain secrecy about the negotiations “Operation Sunrise” thus relates to the early origins of the Cold War in Europe and had wide-ranging implications, even in the field of justice: New evidence suggests that the Western Allies not only failed to ensure cooperation between their respective national war crimes prosecution organizations, but in certain cases even obstructed justice by withholding evidence from the prosecution."

In the revised edition of "A Century of War", on p. 100, Engdahl wrote that "von Schroeder secretly arranged financing of Hitler's NSDAP, at that time de facto bankrupt with huge debts"

Antony Sutton noted, in "America's Secret Establishment":

"The records of the U.S. Control Council for Germany contain the post-war intelligence interviews with prominent Nazis. From these we have verification that the major conduit for funds to Hitler was Fritz Thyssen and his Bank fur Handel and Schiff, previously called von Heydt's Bank. This information coincides with evidence in Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler and Hitler's Secret Backers, even to the names of the people and banks involved, i.e., Thyssen, Harriman, Guaranty Trust, von Heydt, Carter, and so on.

The document reproduced on page 167 below, slipped through U.S. censorship because the Office of Director of Intelligence did not know of the link between Fritz Thyssen and the Harriman interests in New York.

Documents linking Wall Street to Hitler have for the most part been removed from U.S. Control Council records. In any event, we reproduce here the Intelligence report identifying Fritz Thyssen and his Bank fur Handel und Schiff (No. EF/Me/1 of September 4, 1945) and page 13 of the interrogation of Fritz Thyssen entitled "Financial Support of the Nazi Party."


This flow of funds went through Thyssen banks. The Bank fur Handel and Schiff cited as the conduit in the U.S. Intelligence report was a subsidiary of the August Thyssen Bank, and founded in 1918 with H.J. Kouwenhoven and D.C. Schutte as managing partners. In brief, it was Thyssen's personal banking operation, and affiliated with the W.A. Harriman financial interests in New York.

Thyssen reported to his Project Dustbin interrogators that:
"I chose a Dutch bank because I did not want to be mixed up with German banks in my position, and because I thought it was better to do business with a Dutch bank, and I thought I would have the Nazis a little more in my hands."

Hitler's Secret Backers identifies the conduit from the U.S. as "von Heydt," and von Heydt's Bank was the early name for Thyssen's Bank. Furthermore, the Thyssen front bank in Holland - i.e., the Bank voor -iandel en Scheepvaart N.V. - controlled the Union Banking Corporation in New York."

Then there is the following from Webster Tarpley. Unlike much LaRouche related work, this is well documented: - I do not trust Tarpley in general, but the sources he cites seem to be valid, they should of course be independently verified - he cites the WA Harriman papers for his Warburg claims.

As for Hitler's initial monetary policies, when he kept Schact on board they cohered somewhat with international finance - this collection cites "Hitler Speaks" [a spurious document: (], ignoring that, the other sources are valid: - then Stephen Goodson explains Hitler's repudiation of Schacht: - from this article we find the following, "In January 1939 matters came to a head when Schacht refused extension of RM3 billion worth of Offa and Mefo bills, because of fears of “inflation”. On January 7, 1939, he sent Hitler the following memorandum:

“1) The Reich must spend only that amount covered by
2) Full financial control must be returned to the Ministry of Finance. (Then forced to pay for anything the army desired.)
3) Price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated.
4) The use of money and investment markets must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank. (This meant a practical elimination of Goering’s Four Year Plan)”(14)
By these means Schacht intended to collapse the German economy, which during the period 1933-39 had increased its gross national product by 100 percent. From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with over six million unemployed persons, Hitler had transformed Germany into a socialist paradise and the most powerful and prosperous state in the history of Europe. He angrily rejected the recommendations of the Reichsbank, describing them as “mutiny”.(15)

On January 19, 1939 he sacked the impudent lackey of international finance.(16) Without further ado he instructed the Reichsbank to issue all credits requested by the state. A form of Federgeld (Feder money) was now in circulation, although the bills of exchange still attracted nominal interest.

A new Reichsbank law, which was promulgated on June 15, 1939, made the bank “UNCONDITIONALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.”(17) Article 3 of the law decreed that the bank should be “directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.”(18) Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, suffer the same fate: an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country."

Regarding the recent reviewer - if I attempt further work in this, it will be mostly from primary and archival sources. Many of the most important links already given are to primary sources.
Reviewer: manhattansunrise - favoritefavoritefavoritefavorite - December 29, 2014
Subject: very controversial
There are many controversial links here.
Reviewer: smacdon2012 - favorite - December 3, 2014
Subject: Um, Eustace Mullins
Um, apparently some pathetic antisemites have posted this book by Eustace Mullins under a completely different entry as an homage to their hero. Please take this down, or at leadt ask these neo-nazi boyscouts to post the book under the correct entry. Pathetic. Once again Jonathan Price the idiot who gives five stars to any racist shit is on board.
Reviewer: pachcc - favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite - December 3, 2014
Excellent compilation. Rothschild name and the entire world system have only one aim and this is the missing part of the puzzle history must put together:
" Throughout Christendom, Protestantism was menaced by formidable foes. The first triumphs of the Reformation past, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to accomplish its destruction. At this time the order of the Jesuits was created, the most cruel, unscrupulous, and powerful of all the champions of popery. Cut off from earthly ties and human interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend its power. (See Appendix.) The gospel of Christ had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to oppose to the power of truth all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the papal supremacy" Great Controversy - Ellen White, 1888 pag 234.2
Reviewer: Jonathan Price - favoritefavoritefavoritefavorite - April 30, 2014
Subject: The Root of All Evil
"I rebuke those who express a racial, rather than ideological, objection to Jewish politics."

Adolph Hitler would agree with you. Jews are not "hated" or disliked because of who they are but because of WHAT THEY DO. That is a FACT. Those that hate Jews simply because of who they are genetically I'd venture to say simply do not exist. Semitism (i.e., Jewish behavior) produces anti-Semitism. That's a FACT and contrary to ADL's false propaganda regarding this matter.
In Collection
Community Texts
Uploaded by
on 6/4/2012
SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)
Community Texts
by William Luther Pierce and Andrew MacDonald (nome de plum)
eye 18,786
favorite 4
comment 3
favoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 3 reviews )
Community Texts
eye 2,191
favorite 3
comment 1
favoritefavoritefavorite ( 1 reviews )
Community Texts
by Ben Steigmann
eye 19,751
favorite 6
comment 3
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 3 reviews )
Community Texts
by Ben Steigmann
eye 2,393
favorite 3
comment 2
favoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 2 reviews )
favoritefavoritefavorite ( 3 reviews )
Community Texts
by Ben Steigmann
eye 1,240
favorite 2
comment 1
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 1 reviews )
Community Texts
by Gustave Le Bon
eye 341
favorite 0
comment 1
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 1 reviews )
Community Texts
by Ben Steigmann
eye 5,717
favorite 4
comment 3
favoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 3 reviews )
Community Texts
by Ben Steigmann
eye 1,513
favorite 2
comment 2
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 2 reviews )
Community Texts
eye 790
favorite 2
comment 1
favoritefavoritefavoritefavoritefavorite ( 1 reviews )